Motta joins SPH at perhaps the best possible time for someone studying the complex intersection of US politics, public opinion, and science communication.
Before coming to SPH, Motta was an assistant professor of political science at Oklahoma State University in Stillwater, OK but has a diverse background that includes a stint as a science communication postdoctoral fellow at the Annenberg Public Policy Center at the University of Pennsylvania, and post-doc scholarship at Yale Law School’s Cultural Cognition Project. He received his PhD in political science from the University of Minnesota, where he was also a National Science Foundation (NSF) Graduate Research Fellow and Doctoral Dissertation Fellow.
His research investigates the social and political determinants of anti-science attitudes, and assesses their health policy consequences. Motta shared more about his work and the ways in which politics and public opinion can affect adoption and compliance with evidence-based health policies.
Let’s start with why public health? What speaks to you about the field and the work you do?
When I was 20, I went on a camping trip with some friends from college and got Lyme disease. I had a pretty nasty battle with the disease (I’ll spare you the details).
Beyond the health scare, though, I was frustrated. My dog was vaccinated against Lyme disease. Why wasn’t I? At first, I assumed we simply lacked the biotechnology necessary to prevent Lyme disease in humans.
But, that isn’t true!
As I detail in some of my research, the US once had a safe and effective Lyme vaccine. However, the vaccine had the misfortune of hitting the market in the late 1990s, amid a fury of anti-vaccine media coverage and vaccine skepticism attributable to Andrew Wakefield and colleagues’ (since retracted) claims that childhood vaccines can cause autism. The vaccine was ultimately pulled from the market due to—among other factors—low demand resulting from unfounded fears about vaccine safety.
A new Lyme vaccine is currently entering stage human clinical trials. If and when it is deemed safe and effective for public use, I want to make sure that this doesn’t happen again.
That’s why I care about the intersection of politics and public health. Views about vaccine safety are highly politicized, and I fear that partisan disagreement will continue to undermine public health objectives aimed at curbing the spread of infectious disease. I hope to better understand the many ways in which policy intersects with political reality, and to give policymakers the tools they need to ensure widespread acceptance of evidence-based health policies.
As a political scientist, can you elaborate on your primary research interests when it comes to politics and public health?
My research aims to better understand the social, political, and psychological causes of health misinformation acceptance in the United States, and the role that misinformation plays in shaping opposition to evidence-based health policy. I use insights from this research to inform strategic communication efforts aimed at reducing misinformation acceptance.
As a political psychologist by training, I consider how Americans’ political attitudes can factor into the acceptance of health misinformation and the rejection of evidence-based health policy. For example, I’m very interested in the role that negative feelings toward scientific expertise—which have become fertile ground for partisan disagreement in recent years—play in motivating the acceptance of misinformation about vaccine safety (among other topics), and subsequently, the rejection of evidence-based vaccine policy.
Politicization in Americans’ willingness to vaccinate against COVID-19 and comply with basic public health ordinances came as no surprise to me and my political science colleagues. For years, we’ve been tracking how partisan differences in the acceptance of scientific expertise, concerns about individual freedom, and several basic psychological orientations might motivate asymmetric compliance with public health policies and recommendations.
Here’s the punchline: the structure of American government and Americans’ political beliefs intersect with health policy at many different points in the policymaking and implementation process. My goal, as a political scientist, is to identify what those intersections might be, and think about how health policymakers can adjust in response. Ultimately, my hope is that—by addressing health misinformation—we can foster support for evidence-based health policies and increase compliance with expert-recommended health behavior.
How can the public health community respond to anti-science attitudes that impact health policy?
This is a huge question: if (some) Americans don’t trust “the experts,” how can we expect people to comply with expert-informed health policy?
Our research points us toward a few tactics that health policy practitioners and health communicators can adopt in pursuit of increasing compliance with evidence-based health policy. These include:
1. Take Experts Out of the Equation: One potentially effective way to combat the influence of anti-science attitudes in public health is to, however paradoxical this might sound, take science out of the equation . Our research suggests that while people who harbor skepticism toward scientific expertise may be less likely to accept health recommendations from physicians and scientists, they are comparatively more receptive to people with whom they have connections in other areas. This includes not just trusted political figures and celebrities, but ordinary folks with whom they have something in common.
Moreover, it’s important to remember that not all scientists and medical experts see eye-to-eye with public health best practices. Some of our work with fellow incoming SPH faculty member Tim Callaghan documents surprisingly high levels of vaccine skepticism among physician populations, often motivated by the same social and political factors that influence vaccine skepticism in the general public. It’s therefore critical that we enroll a pluralistic set of communicators in the push to encourage compliance with evidence-based health policy.
2. Meet People Where They Are: Another potentially effective way to combat anti-science attitudes is to meet people where they are. In other words, we want to (1) make an effort to understand why some people reject scientific expertise, and then (2) try to use that information to inform the conversations we have with science skeptical individuals. I sometimes call this the “diagnosis and treatment” model of strategic health communication. If people tell us, for example, that concerns about bodily sanctity (the “ick” factor associated with injecting foreign substances into one’s body) play a role in their decision to forego vaccination, we might instead consider reframing vaccine-related conversations about the transgressions posed by infectious disease, and the damage they can do to one’s body.
Another strategy that shows promise is to make “validation appeals” (i.e., efforts to tell people that the reasons they might accept misinformation are completely understandable, albeit incorrect) prior to debunking false beliefs. In all, I think that making an effort to understand where people are coming from can play a huge role in encouraging compliance with evidence-based health policy.
3. The Power of Reversal: Finally, one under-utilized tactic that we can employ to discourage science skepticism is to appeal to the power of what my colleagues and I call “reversal narratives;” i.e., efforts to highlight instances where former skeptics “saw the light.” These “I used to be like you!” messages establish common ground between those advocating for evidence-based policies and those who might have reason to reject them. When these reversals happen, they can be powerful tools in the fight against misinformation and acceptance of evidence-based policy.
How do your research interests align with the School’s expansion of research and scholarship in specific areas?
Primarily, I see my work on the social and political causes of vaccine hesitancy (and health misinformation more generally) as contributing to our understanding of how American social and political life influences our ability to combat infectious disease. However, contributing to research in this area is impossible without also recognizing the role that health inequities and the climate play in shaping both the spread and response to infectious disease.
Political attitudes and governing dynamics intersect with public health at many points in the policymaking and implementation process. Correspondingly, I hope that my research can speak to many of SPH’s strategic directions over the coming years.
Why did you choose SPH? What made the institution stand out?
The opportunity to work at BUSPH has been something of a dream come true for me. In addition to the school’s commitment to many of the core research principles that motivate my research, I continue to be amazed by SPH’s exceptionally productive researchers, highly engaged student population, and commitment to pursuing health equity. I was not at all surprised to hear that the school now sits at #6 in national program rankings.
But, BUSPH is more than just an exciting opportunity to further my research interests and to work with exceptionally gifted students. It’s also home for me. I grew up in Providence, RI, and have hoped to live in Boston for just about my whole life. I’m not totally sure how to put into words just how fortunate I feel to be here—I feel, every day, like I’ve won the lottery.
Looking forward, what are you most excited about for this new role?
That’s easy! The people.
In addition to how excited I am to work with both a productive group of researchers and talented students, I’ve really enjoyed getting the chance to meet everyone who makes BUSPH one of the top public health programs in the country. I’ve felt so welcomed in the short time I’ve been here and look forward to continuing to grow both professional relationships and friendships in the years that come.
Close
